|
April 27, 2009
"enamored with attaining and remaining in power"
Ed Florack has a brilliant essay at PJM, which goes a long way towards explaining what's wrong with the Republican Party: While conservatives and libertarians make up the majority of the GOP, they don't make up even half of the leadership. The rank and file are interested in principles of conservatism and libertarianism. They want to see those principles applied to governing. The GOP leadership has no interest anymore in such matters, being more enamored with attaining and remaining in power. Those principles are just standing in their way.And this (from William F. Buckley): The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.Read it all. It is interesting how much conservatives and libertarians happen to agree with each other on the problem with the GOP. Now if they could just agree to disagree on the rest, some progress might be made towards something resembling unity. It never ceases to amaze me how much strife there is over social issues which aren't within the federal purview anyway. Were I in the so-called "GOP leadership," I'd do everything in my power to keep these disagreements festering, and if they'll never be solved by the federal government, so much the better! posted by Eric on 04.27.09 at 12:14 PM
Comments
It is true that MOST of the social issue stuff is not in the federal purview. But some of it is: federal funding of abortion; federal regulation of it on federal lands (military bases, mostly); DOMA. Most critically, since judges are now superlegislators: who goes on the bench if Obama ever allows another honest presidential election. Clayton E. Cramer · April 28, 2009 11:28 AM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It's An Absolute Disgrace
The Seeds Of Stupidity Remember D-Day Newton's Cradle Taxes Send Jobs Offshore The law is the law! A teaching moment? You Can't Do It At Random In debt to Islam? For Western thought? David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
IMO the problem with the GOP is not who they elect but who they re-elect.
Incumbents are seldom ousted. It happens but it is a poor bet. The first time office holder has usually ran for an open seat.
The surest bet about those elected is that they will quickly decide that nothing matters as much as staying in office.
It is normally quite pleasant there. Especially in the US Congress. Your family wants stability. You are important.
And the statistics are undeniable; the surest way to be re-elected is to offend few, coddle the media, and avoid accountability. And have lots of campaign money. So that is what first time office holders learn.
There are two sayings that come to mind. The first is the justification of the office holder. The second I will leave to the reader to interpret.
First: sine qua non.
"you can't make a difference if you aren't there" is used to justify breaking campaign promises, abandoning principles, and other unsavory efforts to be re-elected.
Second: "you won't make a difference if you won't take a risk."